ChatGPT has taken the world by storm and everyday we hear more and more stories about how good it is and how it is changing the world. Personally I think the best description of the software is how Christine Lemmer-Webber put it:
ChatGPT is Mansplaining As A Service. A service that instantly generates vaguely plausible sounding yet totally fabricated and baseless lectures in an instant with unflagging confidence in its own correctness on any topic, without concern, regard or even awareness of the level of expertise of its audience.
People are using it for anything and everything including writing exams, writing articles, job posts, etc etc. While the result we get looks quite plausible there have been multiple cases where the output is subtly wrong and using the result as is can cause problems. However, there is one place that I can think of that ChatGPT would be extremely useful without any major drawbacks. If you have seen any TV show recently there are a lot of times where the characters will use technobabble to explain something and a lot of times the explanations are so ridiculous that they end up distracting you from the actual plot (such as it is).
My idea is that we encourage the writers to start using ChatGPT to write the jargon, even if it gets it wrong it wouldn’t be worse than what we have already so it is a win win. Plus since we all know that media tech works differently we don’t have to worry about the results being 100% accurate or correct.
One example is as below:
Forensic Scientist 1: Hey, have you seen the results from the trace DNA sample we collected from the crime scene?
Forensic Scientist 2: Not yet, I was just about to head over to the lab and check. Why, did you already receive them?
Forensic Scientist 1: Yeah, I just got an email from the lab. They’re pretty clear cut.
Forensic Scientist 2: Great, let’s take a look. What do the results show?
Forensic Scientist 1: Well, the sample is a match with the reference sample from our suspect. The lab confirmed a positive identification.
Forensic Scientist 2: That’s fantastic. Did they provide any details on the genetic markers?
Forensic Scientist 1: Yes, they identified several short tandem repeat markers that match between the sample and the reference. They also ran a mitochondrial DNA analysis and got a match there too.
Forensic Scientist 2: This is really strong evidence. But we need to be sure to double check all the details, especially since this is a high-profile case.
Forensic Scientist 1: Absolutely. I was thinking we should do a full review of the lab’s methodology and verify that the samples were handled and stored properly.
Forensic Scientist 2: That’s a great idea. Let’s also review the lab’s accreditation and see if they meet all the necessary standards.
Forensic Scientist 1: Right, we want to make sure our evidence is solid and can stand up in court.
Forensic Scientist 2: Definitely. Well, let’s head over to the lab and start our review.
Forensic Scientist 1: Sounds good. Let’s do it.
Another example:
Cybersecurity Professional 1: Hey, have you seen the alert about the recent cyberattack?
Cybersecurity Professional 2: Yes, I just received the notification. What do we know so far?
Cybersecurity Professional 1: The attack appears to be a phishing campaign. The attackers are using fake emails to steal login credentials from unsuspecting victims.
Cybersecurity Professional 2: That’s a common tactic. Did they manage to compromise any systems?
Cybersecurity Professional 1: Yes, we have reports of several systems being breached. Our incident response team is currently investigating the extent of the damage.
Cybersecurity Professional 2: Okay, let’s see if we can help with the investigation. What’s the first step?
Cybersecurity Professional 1: First, we need to isolate the infected systems and contain the spread of the attack. Then we can start looking into how the attackers gained access and what they did once they were in.
Cybersecurity Professional 2: Right. I’ll start working on the containment and isolation. Have you seen any indications of what the attackers are after?
Cybersecurity Professional 1: It’s not clear yet, but it looks like they are targeting sensitive information, such as financial data and personal information. We need to be proactive and make sure all our systems and data are secure.
Cybersecurity Professional 2: Agreed. We need to inform the relevant stakeholders about the attack and what measures we’re taking to prevent further damage.
Cybersecurity Professional 1: Absolutely. We also need to start preparing for the worst-case scenario, in case the attackers managed to exfiltrate any data.
Cybersecurity Professional 2: That’s a good point. We need to be prepared for the aftermath and make sure we have a plan in place to respond effectively.
Cybersecurity Professional 1: Right. Let’s get to work and make sure we minimize the impact of this attack.
What do you think?
– Suramya